From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932290AbWDCMmZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:42:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932310AbWDCMmZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:42:25 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:36324 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932290AbWDCMmY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:42:24 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: [RFC] sched.c : procfs tunables From: Mike Galbraith To: Al Boldi Cc: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-smp@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200604031459.43105.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> <200604010044.09185.kernel@kolivas.org> <200604031459.43105.a1426z@gawab.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 14:43:15 +0200 Message-Id: <1144068196.8083.30.camel@homer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 14:59 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Nope, not the existing tunables anyway. The full effect of even a tiny > > scheduler knob tweak is hard to predict even if you've studied the code > > carefully. These knobs are just not generic enough to be exposed IMHO. > > Are you implying that the code is built around these tunables rather than > using them? I'm not implying anything, I'm merely stating my opinion: these knobs have subtle effects which render them unsuitable for export. -Mike